<![CDATA[
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#FF0000" vlink="#0000FF" background="offwhite1.jpg">
<center><img SRC="creationheading.gif" width="288" height="192">
<p>(The purpose of this page is to present evidence from the Second Law
of Thermodynamics that darwinian evolution is, in fact, bad science)
<p><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#400080"><font size=+3>THE SECOND
LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND EVOLUTIONISM</font></font></font></b><b><font face="Arial"><font color="#400080"><font size=+3></font></font></font></b>
<p><font size=+1><a href="CDS.html">(This information is now available
on audio CD!)</a></font></center>
<p><a NAME="Introduction"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>Introduction</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The purpose of this brief paper is to cause the thinking
student to re-evaluate the basis on which the theory of evolution is built
in light of the second law of thermodynamics. In recent years there has
been an assumption on the part of many that to question evolutionism in
a public school is tantamount to a violation of the establishment of religion
clause of the first amendment of the U.S. constitution! This assumption,
while not reflecting good logic, is a result of the fact that many (but
by no means all!) who question evolutionism do believe the Biblical
account of creation. Therefore I would like to underline emphatically from
the beginning that this is not a theological paper. My purpose here is
not to argue in behalf of any philosophical position. This paper does not
endorse or attack any religious view or belief. My purpose simply is to
state an observation, not heard often enough, from the laws of physics
and mathematics that the theory of evolution contradicts universally recognized
and accepted laws of science and mathematics.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="second"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>The Second
Law of Thermodynamics</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The second law of thermodynamics was first expressed
in stated form by the German physicist, Rudolf Clausius (1822-1888). He
observed that "<i>it is not possible to construct an engine whose sole
effect is the extraction of heat from a heat source at a single temperature
and the conversion of this heat completely into mechanical work</i>."<a NAME="fn1"></a><!-- --><sup><a href="#ref1">1</a></sup>
In other words, when mechanical work is done in a system, even though there
will be no loss of energy in the system (law of conservation of energy),
there will be a loss of useful energy. Some of the energy will be dissipated
and lost in the form of heat and random energy (e.g. friction). There is
no such thing as a perfectly efficient engine. Any time work of any kind
is done some energy is lost. In every mechanical operation a certain amount
of energy becomes unusable, spread out into random, disordered molecular
activity in the form of sound waves or increased heat. If you apply directed
energy to boards and nails using hammer and saw in order to build a doghouse,
some of the energy has the desired effect, but much energy is dissipated
in the sound of the hammer and saw, heat in the boards, nails, and surrounding
air, etc.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>This fundamental law of physics is also often stated
as <i>the law of increasing entropy</i>. Entropy refers to the amount of
energy that cannot be converted into mechanical work. "Disorder" and "randomness"
are close synonyms. High entropy refers to a state of great disorder. Thus
the second law of thermodynamics is often stated as the law of increasing
entropy: <i>"A natural process always takes place in such a direction as
to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe."<a NAME="fn2"></a><!-- --></i><sup><a href="#ref2">2</a></sup></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>The effect of this law is that unless there is a purposeful
source of energy operating in a system, the various parts, molecules, etc.
become less and less organized and more and more random. Illustrations
abound. Men can build houses, automobiles, watches, computers, etc. by
application of
<i>purposeful, directed</i> energy. Some of the energy used
to effect this decrease in entropy is lost in the process in the form of
sound and heat energy. A certain amount of the useful, directed energy
used to construct these organized things becomes useless. Not only that,
but unless more purposeful energy is applied, these things ("pockets" of
decreased entropy) become more and more disordered over time. A house will
eventually become a mere pile of rubble unless additional directed energy
is used for upkeep. Have you ever looked at an old house that had not been
kept up? After a period of time, the wood begins to rot. The metal pipes
begin to rust. The roof and walls fall in. The structure becomes more and
more disorganized and random. It eventually will become a pile of molecules
and atoms indistinguishable as a house. This is the law of increasing entropy.
Your desk or your room provides a good illustration. Unless you (or someone)
applies purposeful, directed energy, it is astounding how quickly increasing
entropy can be observed! Automobiles wear out and rust away. Bees expend
intentional purposeful energy to build elaborate hives. But when the intentionality
is removed, the hive inevitably and invariably deteriorates and eventually
disintegrates.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="relates"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>How the Second
Law Relates to Evolution</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Perhaps you are thinking, "Well, the second law of
thermodynamics is very interesting, and I can see some practical applications
(for example, when Mom says 'Clean up your room!' I can tell her I am conducting
an experiment on increasing entropy), but what does it have to do with
evolutionism?" Just this: one of the basic assumptions of the theory of
evolution of life is that somehow, over billions of years, very simple
elements and compounds combined, and stayed combined, in ever increasing
and incredible complexity, until mind-bogglingly complex organisms came
into being. (It does not require much study to begin to realize that the
simplest one-celled organism is mind-bogglingly complex!)</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Most evolutionists would, of course, acknowledge the
validity of the second law of thermodynamics. It would be granted by most
any scientist that simple molecules do not normally combine with one another
to form extremely complex molecules (decreased entropy) unless the scientists
themselves carefully and intentionally supply directed energy in just the
right circumstances (carefully arranged by the scientists). Because of
the second law of thermodynamics, we do not expect simple molecules to
become complex ones in a random fashion.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Thus the only means to maintain the theory of evolution
in light of the second law of thermodynamics is to postulate that, while
chance combinations of simple molecules into exceedingly complex ones would
be very rare, given enough time (billions of years) it could happen. And
in fact, it is theorized, this is precisely what happened.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>At first glance this hypothesis seems plausible. Julian
Huxley's famous argument that, given enough time, a million monkeys typing
on a million typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean play
is based on such thinking. After all, over a period of billions of years
surely many extremely improbable events could occur! Perhaps even a systematic
and monumental exception to the second law could occur, given a few billion
years.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="Mathematical"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>Mathematical
Analysis</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Fortunately it is not necessary for us to come to a
conclusion of such probability on the basis of "It seems (or doesn't seem)
reasonable to me." There are relatively simple mathematical techniques
that help us get a better handle on the probability of the occurrence of
such chance events. All that is necessary is to agree on some basic assumptions.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>For example, take the case of the monkeys typing a
Shakespearean play. Let us assume one million monkeys typing twenty-four
hours a day on one million typewriters having forty keys each. Assume each
monkey types one hundred "words" per minute. How long might we expect it
to take for one of them to type Othello? Well, let's start with the first
few words of Othello, "Never tell me; I take it much unkindly...". The
probability of randomly hitting the letter "N" on a typewriter of forty
keys is one out of forty. The probability of hitting an "N" followed immediately
by an "e" is 1/40 x 1/40 or one out of 1600. The probability of typing
"Never" would be 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 or about one out of one
hundred million. One million monkeys, each typing 500 characters per minute
(8.33 characters per second), would type 8.33 x 10<sup>6</sup> characters
per second. Therefore we could expect one of them to type the first word
in about 12 seconds (one hundred million divided by 8.33 x 10<sup>6</sup>).
However, the first 20 characters and spaces (getting us into the fifth
word) would require 40<sup>20</sup> divided by 8.33 x 10<sup>6</sup> seconds.
A calculator will quickly show that we could not expect a monkey to type
the first four words for over 4 x 10<sup>17</sup> years! Astronomers and
cosmologists would agree that that's at least 20 million times the age
that they themselves assign to the universe! (While the age of the universe
is certainly open to debate, virtually all modern cosmologists and astronomers
agree that the evidence is overwhelming that the universe could have been
in existence no more than 20 billion years.)</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>So much for monkeys and Shakespearean plays. But what
about the complex molecules of life? Let us make some generous assumptions
on behalf of evolutionism. Let us assume that: 1—There are 10<sup>1000</sup>
atoms in the universe (astronomers estimate approximately 10<sup>80</sup>
atoms). 2—There are 10<sup>100</sup> collisions per atom per year (scientists
say 10<sup>20</sup> is closer to reality). 3—One out of every two collisions
are in the right combination to produce a mutant to further evolution.
4—All the beneficial mutants survive. No one could argue against the fact
that these four assumptions are far more favorable to evolutionism than
we find in the real world.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Realize that simple amino acids require the orderly
arrangement of about 20 atoms. Proteins, however are far more complex and
require the arrangement of approximately <i>10,000</i> atoms. And, of course,
a DNA molecule is several orders of magnitude still more complex (about
<i>10 billion</i> atoms!). One living cell requires the arrangement of
10<sup>15</sup> atoms. A human body has approximately 10<sup>24</sup> atoms
in an unimaginably complex arrangement!</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>(Some of you who have not worked very much with exponents
and scientific notation might wonder how there could be 10<sup>24</sup>
atoms in one person and "only" 10<sup>80</sup> atoms in the entire universe.
Remember we are talking about orders of magnitude! There are approximately
10<sup>24</sup> atoms in an 80 kg. man. The mass of the sun is approximately
2 x 10<sup>30</sup> kg. Solving a simple proportion gives us 2.5 x 10<sup>52</sup>
atoms in the sun. There are about 100 billion stars in an average galaxy
(10<sup>11</sup>). That would be about 2.5 x 10<sup>63</sup> atoms. There
are also about 10<sup>11</sup> galaxies in the universe. Multiplying again
we get about 2.5 x 10<sup>74</sup> atoms in the universe.)</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Given the assumptions above we would expect very large
numbers of amino acids to be produced every second. (Therefore it is not
surprising that scientists have produced them in laboratory situations
after about a week of chance collisions.) But when we examine the probability
of a simple protein coming about by chance the numbers become staggering.
To claim that obtaining an <i>amino acid</i> by setting up an opportunity
for chance collisions of the molecular components shows us how <i>proteins</i>
came into existence would be even more monstrous than to give a million
monkeys typewriters, let them pound away, discover the word "NEVER," and
say, "Aha! Now we know how Shakespeares plays were written!" <i>The age
of the universe is many orders of magnitude too small to allow us to expect
a chance formation of a protein</i>. And remember, we are assuming that
all favorable combinations last until the protein is formed. But now we
have carried our assumptions so far that we have to discard the second
law of thermodynamics to accept them! Remember, complex entities (e.g.
polypeptides) do not of themselves get more complex! <i>They tend to break
down</i>. Energy is dissipated. Entropy increases. We cannot expect order
to increase by chance. The universal experience of scientists to this effect
is formulated in the second law of thermodynamics</font></b>.
<p><a NAME="relevant"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>Relevant
Observations By Notable Scientists</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Harold F. Blum, Princeton University physicist, points
out that if we assume the presence of amino acids in abundance, assume
the proper catalysts are present, and assume favorable temperature and
moisture conditions, the chances of getting a polypeptide of only ten amino
acids would be only one in 10<sup>20</sup>. And this probability, infinitesimal
as it seems, is large compared to the probability of getting a simple protein.<a NAME="fn3"></a><!-- --><sup><a href="#ref3">3</a></sup>
It is inconceivable. And remember, millions of proteins would be needed
for the next step toward life. And remember further that even if complex
amino acid chains could be produced, the second law of thermodynamics tells
us that they would begin to disintegrate since they are all reversible
chemical processes.</font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>These simple and obvious facts of physics and mathematics
have caused many notable scientists who have thought logically about the
matter to draw conclusions similar to Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernest Chain
who said: <i>"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest
is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis
based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical
evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex
and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so
uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists
without a murmur of protest."<a NAME="fn4"></a><!-- --></i><sup><a href="#ref4">4</a></sup></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>In his book, <i>Life Itself</i>, Dr. Francis Crick
(Nobel Prize-winner and codiscoverer of DNA) wrote: "<i>What is so frustrating
for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any
numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence
of events .... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to
us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears
at the moment to be almost a miracle..."<a NAME="fn5"></a><!-- --></i><sup><a href="#ref5">5</a></sup></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Finally, a couple of quotes from the renowned British
mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle: <i>"The probability of life
originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd..."<a NAME="fn6"></a><!-- --></i><sup><a href="#ref6">6</a></sup>
and <i>"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way
is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard
might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."<a NAME="fn7"></a><!-- --></i><sup><a href="#ref7">7</a></sup></font></b>
<p><a NAME="Conclusion"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>Conclusion</font></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+1>Straightforward and universally recognized laws of
physics and mathematics make a powerful statement against the hypotheses
of evolutionists concerning the origin and development of life. Students
must learn to do the kind of careful detailed thinking fostered by the
study of math and physics in order to avoid making the ludicrous sweeping
generalizations that fly in the face of careful logic, but that are carelessly
assumed to be true by many scientists and nonscientists alike.</font></b>
<p><a NAME="References"></a><b><font face="Arial"><font size=+2>References</font></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref1"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>1. John E. Williams,
Frederick E. Trinklein, and H. Clark Metcalfe, <i>Modern Physics </i>(New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), p. 208. <a href="#fn1">(go back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref2"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>2. Ibid., p. 210.<a href="#fn2">
(go back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref3"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>3. Harold F. Blum,
<i>Time's Arrow and Evolution </i>(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1962), p. 119. <a href="#fn3">(go back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref4"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>4. D.T. Rosevear,
"Scientists Critical of Evolution" (Pamphlet No. 224, Evolution Protest
Movement, 1980), p. 4. <a href="#fn4">(go back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref5"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>5. Francis Crick,
<i>Life Itself
</i>(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 79. <a href="#fn5">(go
back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref6"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>6. Fred Hoyle and
Chandra Wickramasinghe, <i>Evolution from Space </i>(London: J.M. Dent
and Co., 1981), pp.141, 144. <a href="#fn6">(go back)</a></font></b>
<p><a NAME="ref7"></a><!-- --><!-- --><b><font size=+1>7. "Hoyle on Evolution,"
Nature, V. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105. London: J.M. Dent and Co., 1981),
pp.141, 144. <a href="#fn7">(go back)</a></font></b>
<p>Steve Hall
<br>1991
<br><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">steve@aboundingjoy.com</a>
<p><font size=-2>© 2000 Steve Hall. Permission is hereby granted to
quote from these web pages, in part or in full, as long as the following
statement is included: "© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com).
Quoted by Permission."</font>
<center>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="index.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Abounding
Joy Home Page</a></font></b>
<p><b><font size=+2><a href="mailto:steve@aboundingjoy.com">Send us email!</a></font></b>
<p><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">Go to Main Table of Contents</a>
<br><a href="Maintoc.html" TARGET="_top">(For browsers without frames)</a></center>
</body>
]]>